Proposed Children and Families (Wales) Measure

Consultation response

CF5 - All Wales Association of Children and Young People’s Framework Partnership Support Officers

Duncan Mackenzie
Chair, All Wales Association
Merthyr Tydfil Children and Young People’s Partnership
Ty Keir Hardie
Riverside Walk
Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8XE

Val Lloyd AM
Committee Chair
Children and Families (Wales) Measure
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay CF99 1NA

Consultation on proposed Children and Families (Wales) Measure

Ms Lloyd

Through various emails between the Legislation Office and the Partnership Support Unit, I was made aware of a suggestion from your Committee that it would find input from Children and Young People’s Partnerships very useful in the consultation phase of the above Measure.

A request from Sarah Sargent, your Committee Clerk, to Charlotte Drury, manager of the Partnership Support Unit, has now been passed to me to action. I am Chair of the All Wales Association of Children and Young People’s Partnership Support Officers (the Assocation), and have held that post since the Association was created in September 2007.

Children and Young People’s Partnerships (CYPPs) are the principle groups through which Welsh Assembly Government policy and statutory guidance is implemented at a local level for children and young people. The most recent guidance released to impact on their work are Stronger Partnerships for Better Outcomes 2006 (Guidance on Local Co-operation under the Children Act 2004) and Shared Planning for Better Outcomes) Guidance and regulations for Children and Young People’s Partnerships) 2007. The former requires local authorities, through CYPPs, to drive forward partnership working across the public, private and voluntary sectors to improve and implement integrated services for children and young people. The latter places a statutory requirement on CYPPs is to produce the Children and Young People’s Plan, which should outline a strategy for discharging its functions in relation to all children and young people.

Among other requirements, CYPPs also responsible for Cymorth and Flying Start funding.

The Association was set up to provide Coordinators and all Partnership staff with the opportunity to collectively discuss issues and share experiences that affect Partnerships. It also allows us to contribute to consultations, steering groups, etc as a collective voice and provides us with a platform to influence discussions around issues that affect Partnerships that previously wasn’t available to us.

This is the first time we’ve been asked to contribute to a consultation process as an Association, and hopefully our submission will encourage further involvement between the Association and the Assembly Government on other issues that affect Partnerships.

This response is the collation of views from Partnerships across the country as well as my own, as Chair of the Association, and I believe we have already agreed to provide oral evidence to yourselves if required. I have structured the response to answer the consultation questions in order.

1. Is there a need for a proposed Measure to deliver the stated objectives of:

• Contributing to the eradication of child poverty;

• Making provision in relation to child minding and day care for children;

• Establishing integrated family support teams to provide services to families where there are children who need to be, or who are, looked after, and this is related to needs on the part of their adult carers (such as dependence on drugs and alcohol); and

• Making provision for play opportunities for children?

Our Answer:

We believe the Measure gives the necessary priority to poverty that is not present within the current core aim structure. Poverty does not fit easily into this structure as issues around poverty are so wide-ranging that they heavily influence the other six priorities.

2. How will the proposed Measure change what organisations do currently and what impact will any such changes have?  

Our Answer:

CYPPs were set up through legislation to provide a number of functions on behalf of local authorities and the Welsh Assembly Government. Funding for the administration and running of CYPPs through local partnership planning teams comes mainly from the local Cymorth grant. CYPP are obviously mindful to ensure as much Cymorth money as possible is available for grant recipients and will try to strike a balance between this and providing enough capacity to carry out their duties. Whilst the aim and objectives of this Measure are completely in line with the purpose of CYPPs, it will become yet another requirement placed on partnership planning teams without the provision of any additional external funds to help support its implementation.

3. Are the sections of the proposed Measure appropriate in terms of achieving the stated objectives?

In considering this question, consultees may wish to consider the nature of the provisions in the proposed Measure that:

(a) Contribute to the eradication of child poverty (sections 1-12), particularly in relation to:

• The broad aims for eradicating child poverty and preparation of strategies (sections 1-5)

• Services to tackle child poverty (sections 6-9).

Our Answer:

We have concerns about the language used in parts of section 1, part 2. To propose, as part of a new statutory provision, that you will ensure that all children will grow up in "decent housing” and "safe and cohesive communities” is a bold ambition but one that is unrealistic and likely to fail. These aims are in contrast to the others, which talk of supporting, reducing, increasing and helping and are far more achievable, without having less impact.

Section 2 discusses Strategies. Partnerships are now well into the first cycle of Children and Young People’s Plans. These have proved to be a very worthy exercise, producing focussed priorities and encouraging cross-sector working and cooperation. However, they have also placed a huge burden on Partnership Planning Teams to support, write and implement them and asked for a lot of support from partners and the Partnerships to embrace them. Whilst any attempt to reduce poverty will be supported and championed by coordinators, there are concerns about the timing of this Measure. It comes half way through a CYP Plan cycle and, if passed in its current format, will provide more changes to our CYP Plan guidance when we have only just gained the support of our partners for the existing guidance.

Section 12 lists the public bodies that are referred to in the context of this Measure. Some of these, the National Parks and the Countryside Council for Wales for example, fall outside the current remit for Partnerships and CYP Plans and their engagement will provide additional work for Partnerships.

(b) Make provision in relation to child minding and day care for children (sections 13-48), particularly in relation to:

• Registration provisions (sections 13-27);

• Emergency protection provisions (sections 28-29);

• Safeguards and disqualification provisions (sections 30-33);

• Inspection provisions (section 34-35);

• Offences and penalty provisions (sections 38-43).

Our Answer:

No comments

(c) Establish integrated family support teams (sections 49-58), particularly in relation to:

• Teams (sections 49-52);

• Boards (sections 53-54);

• Annual reports (section 56).

Our Answer:

In some Partnership areas, parts of their Family support services are provided through funding from their Cymorth grant. Cymorth guidance states that all it’s services should be "additional to and distinct from mainstream services”, so any move to make integrated family support teams statutory could create a conflict for these areas unless there is a change in Cymorth guidance.

Section 53 refers to the establishment of integrated family support boards. Will there be a change in guidance for Partnerships and within the CYP Plans to acknowledge these groups and, outline their role and remit?

Section 56 states that family support teams will report annually to the local authority. Will this be done through the CYPP, which has responsibility for these services and the CYP Plans, which will outline the strategic direction of these services?

Section 53 (7) states that a local authority may pay renumeration and allowances to members appointed to family support boards. This would set an unhealthy precedent as members of Children and Young People’s Partnership, which should be the more senior group to family support boards, do not pay any form of renumeration to its members.

(d) Secure sufficient play opportunities for children (section 60); and

(e) Ensure participation of children in local authority decision making (section 61).

Our Answer:

Section 60, part 4 states that a local authority must publish information about play opportunities in its area. Should this be done through Family Information Services, which are a statutory requirement and whose remit has recently been expanded to include services for a wider age-range of children and young people?

Play and Participation are two of the seven core aims, which form the structure for defining services to children and young people through Assembly policies and planning guidance. Will this Measure seek to change the wording and focus of these core aims, at a time when Partnerships have just accepted the existing set of core aims and based their CYP Plans around them?

4. What are the potential barriers to implementing the provisions of the proposed Measure (if any) and does the proposed Measure take account of them?  

For example, is there capacity to implement the new duties in the proposed Measure through the existing programmes of Cymorth and Flying Start, and to undertake the work of the new Integrated Family Support Teams?

Our Answer:

The Measure comes with a series of proposed changes to the responsibilities of CYP Partnerships and their structure and remit. In some cases, this amounts to an increase in its role and responsibilities without a comsensurate increase in their funding. This comes at a time when all budgets are being frozen or reduced and with Cymorth funding due to be transferred into RSG from 2011 onwards, this will inevitably lead local authorities to look at how they resource the management function of Partnerships.

5. What are the financial implications of the proposed Measure for organisations, if any?  In answering this question you may wish to consider Section 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum (the Regulatory Impact Assessment), which estimates the costs and benefits of implementation of the proposed Measure.

Our Answer:

No comments

6. Are there any other comments you wish to make about specific sections of the proposed Measure?

Our Answer:

Another big issue for Partnerships is the timing of this Measure. If passed, it will impact greatly on the next CYP Plan planning cycle, in terms of the content and direction of the core aims, the remit of Partnership working and the priorities for individual CYP Plans given the content of section 1 (2). Partnerships have already begun to plan for the cycle and many anticipate, based on the time taken to complete their current plans, beginning work in January 2010. Partnerships are hopeful that the Assembly will be able to produce guidance by this date, but this seems be unlikely given the timeframe for this Measure to be passed.

There is no debate that reducing poverty, in all its forms, should be the key driver for services, priorities and the strategic direction of our CYP Plans. However, we need a coherent lead from the Assembly and enough time to embed policy decisions into our Partnership working to ensure that the next cycle of CYP Plans, the overarching strategic lead for services to children and young people, can reflect this.

I hope you find the answers we have given useful and that they provide a perspective to your consultation that you might not have received from elsewhere.

Please get back to me if you have any questions or need clarification on anything we have raised.

I look forward to providing further evidence if required.

Kind regards

Duncan Mackenzie
Chair, All Wales Association